Slashdot Mirror
No, NASA Did Not Accidentally Invent Warp Drive
StartsWithABang writes: As Slashdot has previously reported, NASA Spaceflight has claimed to have vetted the EM Drive in a vacuum, and found there is still an anomalous thrust/acceleration on the order of 50 microNewtons for the device. While some are claiming this means things like warp drive and 70-day-trips-to-Mars are right on the horizon, it's important to view this from a scientist's point of view. Here's what it will take to turn this from a speculative claim into a robust one.
hah HAH! they INTENTIONALLY invented warp drive!!! now make it so!
The Vulcans will be here soon, swooping in like a returning Jesus Christ to save us from ourselves at long last, show us the true path of wisdom, and help us complete the application (an on-line PDF form, no doubt) for membership in the United Federation of Planets.
And then we will all live happily ever after.
NASA did not invent a warp drive. Roger Shawer might have. The title should read, "NASA has not been robustly proven to have built a warp drive" Three teams have reported the same effect from three different devices. And these aren't teams of hacks. Furthermore the test duplicates our best prediction of the cause of the thrust. It's premature to throw a Singularity party but it's definitely premature to declare the device to not be a warp drive.
Skepticism is a good thing. This isn't proper skepticism.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
Duh? This would be more analogous to impulse drive rather than warp drive. Did you even watch the show?
From the article [numbers added for clarity]:
So let me ask you this, aspiring (or armchair) scientists: what would be the criteria you'd demand as the extraordinary evidence necessary to convince you that this is real? For myself, here's what Iâ(TM)d demand at minimum:
* I would certainly demand #4 - this combined with #3 (or a substitute - see below) is the gold standard for "there is really something here even if we don't know what it is".
* I would demand #5 or a similar process of independent peer review
* I would allow "enough reproductions over enough diverse environments to rule out environmental factors" as a substitute for #3.
* As for #2, the less the measurement error could lead to misleading results, the better, but a result that is "at least many standard deviations above the measurement error" may not be necessary to declare that we have an interesting, publishable result worthy of further study.
I would let #1 go: If the phenomenon was caused by something that did NOT scale with input power, it could still be interesting. It might not get us to space, but it would be worth publishing and studying.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
It doesn't imply the power range to be infinite. Everything has a working range. But, although the claim that it's a necessity is dubious, it's pretty well universal. If you supply an LED with less power, it will light less. We tend to PWM them in order to do this digitally with only one voltage on a digital circuit, but - for a certain range - their brightness correlates to the power supplied to even LED's, yes.
If I understood correctly,
You don't.
it allows you to pre-warp some space ahead in your journey
No-one - that is to say, no-one with an ounce of scientific credibility - is claiming it's a warp drive. There's no reason to even start to consider the idea that it might be a warp drive. The article linked to by the summary with the words "some are claiming this means things like warp drive..." doesn't even mention any claims that it's a warp drive.
The Forbes article links to another article with these words:
When you come across an announcement like the one made by NASA Spaceflight a week ago: that NASA has made a successful test of the EM Drive — a propulsion engine that uses no propellant, seemingly violating one of the most fundamental laws of physics, while warping space in the process — you’d better make sure you aren’t fooling yourself.
And that linked article also doesn't even mention warp drive. Seems to me like some journalists need to calm down a little. "ZOMG! It's not a warp drive!!!" - yes, thanks, but no-one seems to saying it is.
It's a thing that appears to produce thrust by unknown means. That's all. It's very interesting, but it has nothing to do with anything that anyone would call a warp drive.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Where do you get that? According to the article:
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I'm probably not alone in being sick and tired about hearing the endless back and forth on this.
On the one hand we have people calling this a Warp Drive and making fantastic flights of fancy and on the other side we have people who think the entire thing is rubbish and anyone even remotely involved deemed a crackpot.
Look -- we have had three different successful reproductions of predicted results. The tests have been done by respected members of respected agencies. And there will be many more tests on the way, I've even heard talk of actually conducting tests in outer space.
So why can't we just wait for more tests? Seems to me that that's the only think to do.
Either way, it will either succeed or it will fail. If anything we MUST conduct these tests to understand the anomalous effect we are seeing here.
Because even if it does fail further tests, it could lead to an understanding the documented and so far anomalous effect which could lead to further advances in science or, if just bad testing could help us understand how to better setup tests and instrumentation.
Above all, it's the complete lack of desire to understanding the cause of the documented effect while focusing on a shouting match that makes both sides look more like religious zealots better suited to jihads than any sort of educated members of the modern society.
What exactly are you saying here? Are you saying that this article is silly because nobody really thinks this is a warp drive? Because get ready: this discussion is about to get flooded with people who think that this is a warp drive.
I watched the show! My favorite episode was the one where they encountered a space-time anomaly while someone was on the holodeck.
my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
While some are claiming this means things like warp drive [...] are right on the horizon
Who are these "some"? The article linked to by the sentence makes no mention of any claims of it being a warp drive.
And then this from the Forbes article:
When you come across an announcement like the one made by NASA Spaceflight a week ago: that NASA has made a successful test of the EM Drive — a propulsion engine that uses no propellant, seemingly violating one of the most fundamental laws of physics, while warping space in the process — you’d better make sure you aren’t fooling yourself.
The linked announcement makes no mention of warping space, so the bolded section seems inaccurately disparaging.
It sounds to me like the guy who wrote the article has fooled himself into believing that someone has claimed it's a warp drive for the purpose of being able to find something to write indignantly about.
Come to think of it, the writer doesn't even seem to be sure of who's who in this scenario. "When you come across an announcement [...] you'd better make sure you aren't fooling yourself." Why would I be fooling myself by simply reading an announcement? Surely it's the people who make the announcement that should make sure they're not fooling themselves. Which I might think they were, if they'd said anything about warping space. Which they didn't.
So just who are these apparently imaginary people that the summary/article is railing against?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
That came from yesterdays story and actually searching for the numbers. This isn't this devices first test outing, as far as I can see he took the most discreditable data point to attack.
we either have
1. another cold fusion debacle
2. groundbreaking fundamentally new science
do i understand the em drive status quo correctly?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
the new cult that thinks mankind was created by spaghetti.
Not just any spaghetti.
I don't know who the "some" are in that sentence, but no one at the link provided in the story is saying this means NASA created a warp drive.
Stop, already.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Actually this is the one criterion missing from the list of "what would it take to convince you that it is real": a viable theory as to how the drive works which makes a prediction that can be tested by another experiment. If this is a real effect then we need a theoretical framework which can be used to explain and predict the size of the effect under different conditions which can then be tested.
This is how the solar neutrino problem was solved. For decades experiments measuring the flux of solar neutrinos had come up short by a factor of 1/3 to 1/2 of the expected value. Initially people thought the experiments were somehow wrong, then focus switched to the solar models predicting the flux but these were confirmed as correct so ultimately nobody had a clue as to why there was discrepancy. People were split between inaccurate experiments, inaccurate prediction or new physics. The problem was solved only when the model which theorists had proposed as a possible solution - that neutrinos changed their flavour as they move through space - was tested by the SNO experiment which measured both the total neutrino flux and the electron neutrino flux separately.
You need both theory and experiment to agree to get understanding and without that clear understanding I would not expect the 'warp drive' effect to be resolved. No matter how much you repeat and verify the experiment there will always be questions raised about some effect which is not accounted for (assuming the effect remains so small). After a few decades you might get to the point where people will admit that the effect is not understood but even then many will ascribe it to some subtle experimental effect rather than new physics. The only way you will change minds is by having a new theory whose predictions are verified by further experiments.
The Forbes article lists five criteria that would make it a more plausible claim. One stands out in particular: the thrust scales with power. The drive reportedly creates on order of 30-50 microNewtons (uN) at 100 W input power. 1 KW power at microwave frequencies really isn't that hard (most kitchen microwave ovens operate near or at this scale), and 10 KW shouldn't be beyond the skills of a decent microwave engineer. Beyond that and it gets into Serious Engineering.
This idea came to me in a matter of seconds, so I must assume that the people currently testing it at NASA should also have thought of it as well and are working at testing the device at a range of power levels to plot out the power-vs-thrust relationship. Should be a piece of cake for at least one order of magnitude.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
No, not really. If it works, it means they have found another edge case where things get a bit stranger. All of the rest of known physics will still be in place.
BTW - cold fusion turned out to be a fraud, despite people clinging to the hope even today.
The trick is getting a nuclear reactor into orbit. One that won't kill the crew. The NEXT trick is managing not to kill the crew from all the radiation generated by traveling very, very fast through a space full of - radiation.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
If this device actually works, it means everything we think we know about physics is wrong.
No, just the non-scientific armchair claims of various things being "impossible," where actual physics doesn't even address what isn't possible, and can't claim anything to be impossible. Science is about what is known, not what isn't. Things are either know to be true in a certain set of conditions, known not to be true in a certain set of conditions, or not known. There is no way that science could, or would try to, claim what is or isn't possible in unknown conditions.
A new technology is just an example of a new context, a new set of conditions. There are basically no limits to what might be true under new conditions. Those are all unknowns.
Science is about what is known, not what isn't.
It wouldn't make much progress if that were the case!
things are either know to be true
Science, by necessity, does not deal in truth. It wouldn't work if it did.
You have a very odd understanding of science.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Yes,
we have something here as exciting as cold fusion or polywater. it seems to violate newtons second law so people are looking for the escape clause. If it's real it's a huge deal because it means the fundamental problem of space travel--- bringing your propellant--- is permanently solved modulo the nitty gritty of making it more efficient.
On the otherhand, like polywater and cold fusion it's likely a reproducible experimental error that's not been identified yet. 3 groups have independently observed it so far.
My guess: it's just ions sputtered off the walls and accelerated or it's attraction towards an induced dipole in the room, neither of which would be exciting.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
It's a thing that appears to produce thrust by unknown means. That's all. It's very interesting, but it has nothing to do with anything that anyone would call a warp drive.
One point to add here: it definitely isn't a warp drive, but the guy that invented it in his garage did so while following a theory he had that the relativistic effects at the moment an electromagnetic wave is reflected can be harnessed to turn the energy of those waves directly into thrust. There is a very simple test nobody has done yet (that the inventor himself is still trying to save money to do, last I heard) - that is to replace the copper resonating cavity with a superconducting cavity to drive up the Q-value. If his theory holds true a 1000W magnetron from a microwave oven will be able to lift a small car off the ground in that setup.
No-one - that is to say, no-one with an ounce of scientific credibility - is claiming it's a warp drive. There's no reason to even start to consider the idea that it might be a warp drive.
Oopsie.
Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
BTW - cold fusion turned out to be a fraud, despite people clinging to the hope even today.
It did not turn out to be a fraud. It turned out to be a 'mistake', and that is even not sure as plenty of physicians are still or again working in that field.
Fraud is a word used in criminal contexts, it means a person is deliberately misleading other people to gain a profit, usually by causing damage to those people.
E.g. if I sell you at a metro station a ticket for 80 cents, which would normally cost 1,30 Euro ... you use the ticket and surprisingly it works, but as soon as a controller checks you, it turns out it is a children's ticket ... that is fraud.
Setting up a weird experiment and finding a strange effect and publishing everything about it: that is science. Even if it get debunked later.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
All the proponents of this "device" are just an example of how incompetent and delusional humans can get. From the NASA publication abstract: "Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the "null" test article)."
Listen up kids, this means that they tested the "true em-drive" and a dummy and _both_ gave them thrust. The dummy is specifically designed so that it _cannot_ do this! This means the "thrust" comes from some other effect, not the "em-drive". That truly and utterly pathetic thing here is that NASA actually did sound science and people are missing the necessary reading comprehension skills to even understand the abstract.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.